ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2003
Women's position during labour: influence on maternal and neonatal outcome.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maternal Positioning in the Second Stage of Labour and its Relationship with Perineal Trauma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2026Pooled it
- Maternal position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Striving for scientific stringency: a re-analysis of a randomised controlled trial considering first-time mothers' obstetric outcomes in relation to birth position.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2012Trial
- Influence of the birth attendant on maternal and neonatal outcomes during normal vaginal delivery: a comparison between midwife and physician management.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2004Trial
- Impact of maternal posture on fetal physiology in human pregnancy: a narrative review.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Review
- A Prospective Randomized Trial of Postural Changes vs Passive Supine Lying during the Second Stage of Labor under Epidural Analgesia.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging of the active second stage of labour: proof of principle.European radiology · 2012Article
- [Perspectives on obstetrics and special consideration on "midwife obstetrics"].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the maternal, perineal and neonatal outcomes of an upright position compared with a supine position during vaginal delivery, in terms of defined outcome variables.
methodsThis case-control study was carried out at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the University Hospital Vienna between 1997 and 2002. A total of 307 women who delivered in an upright position were enrolled in the study. Upright position was defined as free squatting and was also described as an alternative birth position. 307 controls, delivering in a supine position, were selected from the delivery database as the next parity-matched normal spontaneous vaginal delivery. Our analysis was restricted to a sample of women with a gestational age > 37 weeks, a normal sized fetus and a pregnancy with cephalic presentation. Women with medical or obstetric risk factors were excluded.
resultsA statistically significant decrease for the use of medical analgesia (p = 0.0001) and oxytocin (p = 0.001) was observed in women using the upright birth position. The length of the first and second stages of labour did not significantly differ between the two groups (p > 0.05). A significantly lower rate of episiotomy was detected in women who delivered in an upright position compared with women delivering supine (p = 0.0001). The frequency of perineal tears, and vaginal and labial trauma did not differ between the two groups (p > 0.05). When analysing maternal blood loss, no significant differences between the two groups were found (p > 0.05). No differences in APGAR score < 7 at 1 and 5 minutes or cord pH < 7.1 were observed (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThe data indicate that labouring and delivering in an upright position is associated with beneficial effects such as a lower rate of episiotomy, and a reduced use of medical analgesia and oxytocin. In our opinion, the best recommendation is to give low-risk maternity patients the option of bearing in the mode that is most comfortable for them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.